Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4

WoT fantasy tanks are not a good basis for work... but you could try a Maus hull?...
Hmm, so the Soviets see the Maus and think "we could make that work". While experimenting with different designs for Objekt Mickey, they make a twin 152 turret to test recoil handling for the proposed 170 or 203mm which is under development.
 
Hmm, so the Soviets see the Maus and think "we could make that work". While experimenting with different designs for Objekt Mickey, they make a twin 152 turret to test recoil handling for the proposed 170 or 203mm which is under development.
And, considering Stalin's penchant for big-weird-a$$ weapons, I can actually see this happen.
 
And then the Nato forces follow suit with equally ridiculous vehicles, which is brilliant for modellers, but not for anyone who has to use or maintain them.
FV4005_010.jpg
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Elbonia finds humongously big oil deposits and builds an military with 7.2 inches tank destroyers an artillery equiped with Gustav 800 millimeter railway guns and contracts Blohm & Voss for an H Class battleship...
 
Elbonia finds humongously big oil deposits and builds an military with 7.2 inches tank destroyers an artillery equiped with Gustav 800 millimeter railway guns and contracts Blohm & Voss for an H Class battleship...
Which promptly sinks in their muddy terrain and taken apart by local villagers for scrap.
 
WoT fantasy tanks are not a good basis for work... but you could try a Maus hull?...
Another possibility is to look at the really big multi-turreted monstrosities, like the SMK and T-35, which have Maus-like dimensions (the Maus is still bigger, mind), which might be better for carrying two of so large a gun. I dunno how much that'd help, seeing how the KV-7's triple and double gun arrangements were kinda pushing it already for a casemate...

aTSCP9j.jpeg


...as it isn't just having the extra gun and barrel that you've got, you've also got to account for crew positions, extra loaders, space to store the shells, so forth and so on. I don't think there's any Soviet tank that could do it, even a Soviet copy of the Maus. Even one breech like that is a large thing to design a turret around, and as far as I am aware the Soviets never actually did it themselves - the ISU-152, SU-152, Object 704 that was designed using the IS-3 hull, they're all the tanks that carried the gun and all of them are casemates. The Maus could possibly have it, but probably only the one in the turret. I'm not sure where you'd even start for this thing, except if you were designing a whole new vehicle from scratch. I suppose one possibility to consider is something like this thing...

Szf49cp.jpeg


...which is a 280mm gun on a tracked chassis, meaning a very big gun on a very big frame, but that's unpowered and meant to be towed, and seeing how you're starting from scratch you might as well not bother with any existing vehicles and just go straight for it. The end product is liable to end up like some funky looking version of the T28, except bigger and meaner and much more impractical :p

Which promptly sinks in their muddy terrain and taken apart by local villagers for scrap.
This Ratte was built to an even grander scale, and is designed to drive directly on the bedrock - no mud to sink into ;)
 
There are a lot of mechanisms involved in the function of a cannon, and for large cannons those mechanisms tend to be large. Whatever the mechanisms' size, they generally require access, at least for maintenance. Putting two guns side-by-side closer together than what might be seen in a naval turret is generally implausible unless they were engineered for that sort of mounting, i.e. small and some medium caliber autocannons.

Installing two cannons side by side might be a way to simulate the recoil of one larger cannon in a very-low-resources development environment, but it's unlikely to make combat-weapons sense if there isn't enough mounting and platform width available for each gun to have its needed operational and maintenance space.

Irrespective of what is done in video games and fantasy comix.
 
There are a lot of mechanisms involved in the function of a cannon, and for large cannons those mechanisms tend to be large. Whatever the mechanisms' size, they generally require access, at least for maintenance. Putting two guns side-by-side closer together than what might be seen in a naval turret is generally implausible unless they were engineered for that sort of mounting, i.e. small and some medium caliber autocannons.

Installing two cannons side by side might be a way to simulate the recoil of one larger cannon in a very-low-resources development environment, but it's unlikely to make combat-weapons sense if there isn't enough mounting and platform width available for each gun to have its needed operational and maintenance space.

Irrespective of what is done in video games and fantasy comix.
If you talk sense like that, people [1] might start arguing "We want two big guns in a turret, and this argument means that we need the Ratte".

[1] but not me of course
 
There are a lot of mechanisms involved in the function of a cannon, and for large cannons those mechanisms tend to be large. Whatever the mechanisms' size, they generally require access, at least for maintenance.
There's been a lot of talk about the issue with double barreled tanks in these threads. I vaguely remember the topic coming up back in the very first one. I do remember one issue that was mentioned was to do with accuracy and how the position of the two breeches affects where the gunner and their optics are relative to the center point of both barrels. I've probably worded that miserably, but unless you're going for the revolutionary five man turret with two gunners, you're going to have one gunner who has to sight and aim for two cannons, neither of which is likely to be in the "center" position that a tank cannon usually is due to the need to mount both guns in the mantlet, and you'd be aiming both guns from the same sighting piece unless you've got a second gunner with a second set of sights calibrated for the second gun. The general thought of the thread at the time was that this would make getting the weapon on target very difficult, and that'd be made even worse by recoil (since the whole point of having a second gun would be to follow up the first shot with a second before the first gun might've been reloaded), as firing one gun would cause the tank and thus the second gun barrel to wobble, making the second gun even more inaccurate.

Basically, the whole thing results in a tank that is larger (and thus easier to spot and hit), more expensive and mechanically complicated (meaning less units can be produced for a given sum of cash and they're harder to maintain), requiring a greater number of crew (meaning less units can be manned for a given amount of manpower), all to get a tank that's not actually that much more effective in a gun duel. That kind of logic is probably why we never saw multi-gun tanks get very far off the drawing board :p
 
There's been a lot of talk about the issue with double barreled tanks in these threads. I vaguely remember the topic coming up back in the very first one. I do remember one issue that was mentioned was to do with accuracy and how the position of the two breeches affects where the gunner and their optics are relative to the center point of both barrels. I've probably worded that miserably, but unless you're going for the revolutionary five man turret with two gunners, you're going to have one gunner who has to sight and aim for two cannons, neither of which is likely to be in the "center" position that a tank cannon usually is due to the need to mount both guns in the mantlet, and you'd be aiming both guns from the same sighting piece unless you've got a second gunner with a second set of sights calibrated for the second gun. The general thought of the thread at the time was that this would make getting the weapon on target very difficult, and that'd be made even worse by recoil (since the whole point of having a second gun would be to follow up the first shot with a second before the first gun might've been reloaded), as firing one gun would cause the tank and thus the second gun barrel to wobble, making the second gun even more inaccurate.

Basically, the whole thing results in a tank that is larger (and thus easier to spot and hit), more expensive and mechanically complicated (meaning less units can be produced for a given sum of cash and they're harder to maintain), requiring a greater number of crew (meaning less units can be manned for a given amount of manpower), all to get a tank that's not actually that much more effective in a gun duel. That kind of logic is probably why we never saw multi-gun tanks get very far off the drawing board :p
That is correct. why having two guns when a bigger and one gun can do the trick better.
but yeah I'm still figuring out the schematics but I will give you guys this it DOES look pretty funny

this is how it looks with two 152mm twin guns the breach is included it fits but i don't have internals yet
I used some assets from different players so far looks need!
image.png
 
That is correct. why having two guns when a bigger and one gun can do the trick better.
but yeah I'm still figuring out the schematics but I will give you guys this it DOES look pretty funny

this is how it looks with two 152mm twin guns the breach is included it fits but i don't have internals yet
I used some assets from different players so far looks need!
image.png
It looks a bit like a Lorraine carrier had a trip to Major Becker's workshop when he was having a bad day.
I can't help thinking that the recoil from even one of these guns would result in the nose pointing almost skywards - which would extend the range but result in accuracy that would shame Bomber Command.
 
Modern cannons use oil/air recoil management, which generally means two cylinders flanking the barrel...either left/right, or (less often, because it complicates the elevation mechanism and frame design) up/down.

As an approximation, the space required for a recoil cylinder to each side of the barrel plus the frame extension to which the recoil cylinder is anchored is about three calibers. That's per gun, so...even if no provision is going to be made for inspection and maintenance of the recoil cylinders...the closest that two guns could be to each other, centerline to centerline, would be about seven calibers. For a 152mm gun, that'd be about 2.5 feet between centerlines.

A tight-but-plausible working space for inspecting and maintaining a gun's mechanical and hydraulic systems would be 2.5 feet. So, that'd be about five feet between centerlines.

That's more of a naval dimension. The pic below is of a six inch triple turret on Savannah during WWII.

71cckFLCAeL._AC_SX679_.jpg
 
Last edited:
Interesting, no one has mentioned the 2S35, an experimental Russian twin 152mm SP Gun:
twin-barrel-artillery-russia.jpg

It was never fielded, they instead opted for a single barreled version:
2S35-Koalytsyya-SV-9.jpg

There were obviously problems with the twin barrelled version.
 

Claymore

Kicked
An Alternative Take on Bristish Cruiser Tanks:

In October 1928, Christie’s M1928 was demonstrated at Fort Myer, Virginia. There the Army's Chief of Staff, General Charles P. Summerall, and other high-ranking officers were impressed, however, the Tank Board was less enthusiastic. They noted that the vehicle's armour was very thin and could not survive penetration by the smallest armour-piercing antitank rifle or artillery piece. The Board also differed with Christie on its guidelines for tank capabilities, which were based on a radically different theory of armoured warfare than that used by Christie. For the Infantry Tank Board, armour and firepower were more important design criteria than mobility, and the M1928 prototype was passed to the Cavalry for further evaluation. The Cavalry's thinking at that time was based on armoured cars, and it wanted to develop the M1928 as an armoured car chassis. Once again, Christie's concept of how his vehicles should be used, together with his difficult nature, resulted in disputes with Army officials. Ultimately, the Secretary of War rejected mass production of the M1928, citing excessive acquisition costs.

Christie then, somewhat foolishly, felt he was justified in selling his inventions to the highest bidder. A long and complex series of exchanges between Christie and foreign governments followed. These were technically illegal since Christie never obtained approval of the US Department of State, Army Ordnance, or the Department of War to transfer his designs to potentially hostile governments.

Initially, in early 1930, Christie promised to sell his M1928 tank design to the Polish government, but the deal fell through and, to avoid potential litigation, he eventually returned the payment made by the Polish government, which never obtained the tank they had ordered.

Although the USSR did not have diplomatic relations with the USA at the time, and was prohibited from obtaining military equipment or weapons, Soviet OGPU agents at the trade front organization AMTORG managed to secure plans and specifications for the Christie M1928 tank chassis in March 1930 using a series of deceptions. On 28 April 1930, Christie's company agreed to sell AMTORG two Christie-designed tanks, documented falsely as agricultural farm tractors, and without prior approval of the U.S. Army or Department of State. They were successfully shipped to the USSR where the Soviets used them to develop the BT series of tanks, forerunners of the massively produced T-34 tank of World War II.

Needless to say, the US Government, and the Department of State in particular, were not amused and Mr Christie was promptly arrested by the FBI and imprisoned on dubious charges of failing to gain export licences and tax fraud rather than aiding and abetting potentially hostile governments.

After favourable reports on observation of Soviet tank activities in 1936, the British War Office tentatively approached the US Government regarding the possible purchase of a license of the Christie design. Not unsurprisingly, the request was politely but firmly turned down.

Meanwhile, across the Pond in Britain, Sidney Horstmann had been developing suspension designs from the 1920s and through his Slow Motion Suspension Company had by 1930 produced a new design using two road wheels on a single bogie, each connected to a bell crank with a horizontal coil spring between the crank arms, and double-acting shock absorbers to control recoil. In 1934, John Carden of Vickers-Armstrongs had a "bright idea" for a new type of tank suspension and partnered with Horstmann's Slow Motion to turn it into a working design. Unfortunately, Carden was killed in an air crash in December 1935, but by this time he had designed a lighter tank platform that had been taken up as the A9, although later known as the Cruiser Mk I. In this version, one large wheel was fitted on one bell crank, and two smaller wheels to a shared arm on the second crank. This went into production in 1937 as an interim type until the Army could develop something better. The same suspension was then used on the larger A10 Cruiser Mk II which came to its ultimate form as the Valentine tank.

At much the same time in the US, Harry Knox an engineer for Rock Island Arsenal, was developing a similar two-wheeled bogey suspension unit but with an innovative double vertical volute spring in place of Horstmann’s coil spring. The suspension was developed in 1933 and was first tested on a T2E1 light tank prototype in 1934. The Rock Island Arsenal would go on to produce the M1 Combat Car, which entered service with the US Army in 1937.

Horstmann and Knox were fully aware of each other’s work, and it didn’t take long for Horstmann to convince the UK Government to approach the US Government for licencing rights to the more efficient volute spring suspension design. Easier to produce and easier to maintain and replace in the field than Christie’s design, the VVSS seemed like an idea solution to the UK’s future cruiser tank designs. Fortunately, the US Government were more favourable in their response to this request and the rest, as they say, is history…

Mk I Cruiser (A9) and Mk II Cruiser (A10) as OTL for completeness...

1 Mk I Cruiser (A9).png


2 Mk IIA Cruiser (A10).png


Mk III Cruiser (A13 Mk I) and Mk IVA Cruiser (A13 Mk II) with M1 Combat Car VVSS...

3 Alt Mk III Cruiser (A13 Mk I).png


4 Alt Mk IVA Cruiser (A13 Mk II).png


Mk V Cruiser A13 Mk III) Covenanter and Mk VI Cruiser (A15) Crusader I with M2 Medium VVSS...

5 Alt Mk V (A13 Mk III) Covenanter.png


6 Alt Mk VI (A15) Crusader I.png


Mk VI Cruiser (A15) Crusader III with M3 Lee/Grant VVSS...

7 Alt Mk VI (A15) Crusader III.png


Mk VIII Cruiser (A27M) Cromwell with M4 Sherman VVSS...

8 Alt Mk VIII (A27M) Cromwell.png


Cruiser (A34) Comet with M4A3E8 HVSS...

9 Alt Comet (A34).png
 
Last edited:

Claymore

Kicked
An Alternative Take on Bristish Cruiser Tanks:

Four of the above designs will eventually be built (Mk IVA Cruiser, Crusader III, Cromwell and Comet) - with the Crusader III and Cromwell (Christmas presents) already well underway!

Early 1 Cromwell.jpg


Early 2 Cromwell.jpg


Early 1 Crusader.jpg
 
Top